Ex Parte Mears et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 24, 201410578828 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MARK GILMORE MEARS, BRET DAVID HAWKINS, JOSEPH WAYNE FORTER, and JAMES DUANNE TENBARGE ____________________ Appeal 2011-0134161 Application 10/578,828 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Thomson Consumer Electronics Inc. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2011-013416 Application 10/578,828 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-18. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a method and system for allowing a user to perform a selectable channel search in a television signal receiver. Spec. 1, ll. 11-17. In particular, upon the user selecting from a graphical user interface (GUI) at least one of a plurality of input options (cable, antenna) and at least one of a plurality of channel types (analog, digital), the TV receiver searches for channels based upon the selected options. Spec. 2, ll. 21-29, fig. 4. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as follows: 1. A method for enabling a channel search in a signal processing apparatus comprising the steps of: generating a signal suitable for coupling to a display device for displaying an on-screen menu; enabling a user to select a plurality of options for said channel search responsive to said on-screen menu; and wherein said plurality of options includes a first option to individually select which of a plurality of inputs to said signal processing apparatus are to be searched and a second option to individually select which of a plurality of types of channels are to be searched. Appeal 2011-013416 Application 10/578,828 3 Prior Art Relied Upon Shintani US 2005/0086693 Al Apr. 21, 2005 Kikinis US 7,213,256 B1 May 1, 2007 Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Shintani and Kikinis. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4-11.2 Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Shintani and Kikinis teaches or suggests a user selecting one a plurality of input options and one of a plurality of channel type options, as recited in claim 1? Appellants argue the proffered combination does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. App. Br. 5-8. According to Appellants, while Shintani discloses manually activating an auto- programming to select at least one of a plurality modulation schemes, Shintani does not provide the options for selecting from a plurality of inputs, 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 4, 2011), and the Answer (mailed June 13, 2011) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2011-013416 Application 10/578,828 4 as well as a plurality of channel types. App. Br. 5. Further, Appellants argue, Shintani would require the user to perform multiple scans for the options as opposed to performing a single search for the plurality of selected options. Id. at 6. Additionally, Appellants argue while Kikinis’s electronic programming guide (EPG) provides a GUI for searching channels, such a search is based upon parameters such as title, actors, genre, as opposed to channel inputs and channel types. Id. at 6-7. In response, the Examiner finds Shintani’s disclosure of allowing a user to perform a channel search based upon signal inputs, and channel types parameters, taken in combination with Kikinis’s disclosure of a user interface for facilitating the channel search teaches the disputed limitations. Ans. 13-14. On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and ultimate conclusion of obviousness. Shintani discloses a TV receiver including an identifying module, which selects one of a plurality of inputs (e.g., cable, satellite) along with one of a plurality of modulation schemes for modulating the digital/analog signals in the selected input to generate a channel map associated therewith. Abstract, ¶ [0036]. Further, Kikinis discloses an electronic programming guide (EPG) for a television receiver that searches for similar show titles to a show currently displayed by the EPG on the TV screen. Abstract. In particular, upon the user selecting from the EPG display search parameters (e.g., title, actor, genre, date, time), the EPG performs a search to return a list of channels that will air shows similar to the one being searched. Col. 3, ll. 16-59, Figs. 3a-3c. We find by modifying Shintani’s channel mapping apparatus to incorporate therein Appeal 2011-013416 Application 10/578,828 5 Kikinis’s EPG, the ensuing Shintani-Kikinis system would predictably result in an EPG display from which a user can select an input, a signal type, and a modulation option scheme associated therewith to generate a channel map. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 13), in considering the general form of Appellants’ arguments in the principal Brief; Appellants have attacked the individual teachings of Shintani and Kikinis separately, as opposed to the combined disclosures proffered by the Examiner. We note that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the respective references relied on by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what the combination teaches or suggests when considered as a whole. We find nonetheless that the cumulative weight and the totality of the evidence on this record favor the Examiner’s position that the combined disclosures of Shintani and Kikinis would have taught or suggested the disputed limitations. It therefore follows that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Regarding the rejection of claims 2-18, because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2-18 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2011-013416 Application 10/578,828 6 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-18 as set forth above. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation